Writing a journal article in 12 weeks: Week Five

I’m using Wendy Laura Belcher’s book Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success to prepare my paper for publication. Last week was Week Five. I had such a busy time that I forgot to post this update on time.

Week Five is about reviewing the related literature. Belcher talks about different types of scholarly literature, such as original literature, which is primary sources used in the study, derivative literature, which are textbooks or other texts for general public, which are based on secondary sources, contextual literature, which provides background information on a research topic, methodological literature, which describes and defend a methodology used in the study, theoretical literature, which outlines conceptual approaches to a specific topic, and related literature, which is the prior research on the same topic. She argues that a scholarly article should include no (or almost no) derivative literature, while other types of literature should be present and well balanced. Belcher also outlines some effective strategies for reading theoretical and relevant literature and looks at the reading habits of three well-known scholars—Henry A. Giroux, Edward O. Wilson, and Klaus Herding. To my shame I admit that I’ve never heard about the last two. She sums up that section with the following: “Even if you never read as much as these successful scholars, you can learn from their principles of reading: reduce articles to their essence, read and write in the same day, subscribe to journals, and learn to skim” (p. 150).

Then, Belcher explains what to do after one has embarked on reading, how to cite prior scholarship, and how to write a literature review. She insists that a literature review is needed to establish the significance and origin of the argument, to identify its relationship to previous arguments, to defend the approach or methodology used in the study, etc. According to Belcher, a writer needs to start by identifying her relationship to the related literature and establishing an entry point, which is her argument’s relationship to previous arguments.

All of [possible] entry points can be reduced to three traditional positions you can have regarding the previous research:

·       finding it inadequate or nonexistent and filling the gap,

·       finding it sound and extending it, and

·       finding it unsound and correcting it. (p. 152)

Belcher points out that many articles require more than one related literature review and more than one entry point because they try to integrate information from different fields. She explains that an introduction is a good point to give a broad overview of the prior research, but much of the analysis of this research might appear throughout the article. Belcher also discusses some common mistakes in citing literature and gives suggestions on avoiding plagiarism.

During the first day of the week, I read the workbook. On the second day, I evaluated my current citations and identified the type of literature (i.e., original, derivative, etc.) to which each of them belongs. I found that my paper has no derivative literature and that it can use some additional related and methodological literature. On the third day, I needed to identify and read the related literature. I looked at two different new sources, which I thought may enhance my paper, but eventually decided not to include them. I also took a second look at the book already cited in my paper. It gave me a new idea on how to reframe my argument, which I did on the fourth day. During that day, I was supposed to evaluate the related literature, but I felt that, with my new and revised argument, I didn’t need any additional related literature. According to Belcher’s book, the fifth day should’ve been about writing and revising my related literature review, but I was busy attending a writing boot camp and didn’t do any revision. As a result, there are still some small lit review revisions left. However, I was able to decide on the journal I plan to submit my article to, and I feel good about it.